There’s been a lot of news this past year over manipulated photos. The photos at the centre of the controversies had generally been photoshopped to enhance or minimize elements to suite the story. The most famous was probably that of the photo that had added smoke to a bombed area making it appear as though far more damage had been done. In this case, most people felt that it was wrong because they had changed the meaning of the photo to suite their purposes.
But today I found an example of a set of photos that demonstrate how simple cropping, which does not alter the original photographic content in any way, can be used to significantly skew a situation.
The two sets of crops each demonstrate extremes of either end of the centre picture. From the centre photo, it’s a little unclear as to exactly what’s happening. But either crop sends a clear message, one of violence, the other of caring. Even if post production never happens, the photographer can set up their shot as to exclude some of the aspects that make the situation ambiguous. Depending on whether or not the photographer felt threatened or safe would likely have a huge impact on which way he or she might have moved their lens in the examples above. This would be done to take a photo that conveyed the feeling of the situation (which happens to be from the photographer’s perspective). There can exist no political motivation, no personal slant, yet still the image can end up distorted.
All of this makes it difficult to trust the media in general because even a good, honest photographer can inadvertently mis-represent a situation. Presenting situations in a fair and balanced manner is difficult if not impossible. Unfortunately, it’s left in your hands. It’s up to you to dig in to find out just what it is that’s going on. As I said, it’s difficult but not impossible.
Jordans // Dec 20, 2008 at 12:01 am
That is freaking messed up.. just cut the gun off and the guy looks like hes a saver. It took me a while to get it, but I got it in the end.
Ling // Dec 20, 2008 at 4:23 am
Which is why its preferable to see a video before you make any judgment. Most articles by the MSM today are biased, and the photos are generally chosen to hammer home the bias of the writer.
prem // Dec 20, 2008 at 11:01 am
recently i got a mail in that a video link is given it show some ghost sudden appear in a hotel lift. The cctv camera shows Ghost with visitor but they visitors not able to recognize the ghost presence.
Its a real trick they did in video to cheat people or to have fun
Tom // Dec 21, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Not only the media, even(?) small blogs are manipulating photos. My advice is to never form an opinion based on a photograph, EVER; the most suspicious photos are those with emotional subjects.
heating it up // Dec 22, 2008 at 5:50 am
A picture can speak a thousand words… but they can always be manipulated to convey the attitudes of the publisher. It is only a milisecond in time, shown most obviously with the paparazzi and celebrities.
Fender Stratocaster // Dec 31, 2008 at 3:49 am
This happens a lot nowadays, I’ve been noticing. Photoshop is easily accessable to anyone, so it’s really hard to trust a picture without a solid source anymore.
Lance | Johnson // Dec 31, 2008 at 8:44 am
Fascinating set of pictures. I agree with the previous comment, in that I feel better when I can actually see video as opposed to merely images. I remember the American election, where a lot of damage could be done when videos on YouTube clarified what actually happened versus what someone said happened.
Ernie Small // Jan 17, 2009 at 7:20 am
interesting post.
it is important to remember that as soon as someone attempts to capture something they may intentionally or inadvertently put a slant on it that colors the whole thing in a different way. even though photo manipulation is so much more advanced now than ever before, this has always been the case. but, unfortunately, nowadays we have to be more vigilant in taking everything we see and hear with a grain of salt.